– How is the scepticism with regard to the vaccine is spreading it? Lucy Guimier. twitter Lucy GUIMIER. – The factor of territorial, long ignored, is crucial. The vaccino-skepticism is spreading like an epidemic, it is “contagious”. This is explained by the simplicity of the rhetoric: “vaccination is dangerous”, “against-nature”..
.. In front, the scientific argument, complex, struggling to do the weight. The resistance is exacerbated where operating doctors themselves refractory, because their statements are authoritative. How to explain the large differences between regions? There are territories where the populations are more intractable than elsewhere.
In the southern part of the Ardèche, for example, a significant proportion of children is not vaccinated (measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B). . In this department, this refusal is claimed.
It feeds the image of a territory of resistance forged in the course of history, since the breakthrough of protestantism in the Sixteenth century until the maquis of the Second world War.
This history, coupled with the geography and to the rural exodus, led to the arrival from the 1960s and 1970s of néoruraux in quest of a nature mythifiée, away from the city, of the system productivity and of the consumer society.
In other jurisdictions, the vaccino-scepticism will be more pronounced within communities of religious traditionalists.
It key profiles sociological very different.
“The people who refuse vaccines are more likely to consult doctors homeopaths, use of alternative medicines” Lucia Guimier These behaviors are limited to the vaccination? They are accompanied by modes of life specific. These people do not speak about possible side effects or tacit collusion between pharmaceutical companies and health authorities. They refuse the immunization because it is perceived as an act against the order of nature.
This is often accompanied by consumerist practices alternatives. Persons who refuse the vaccine are more likely to consult doctors homeopaths, use of alternative medicines. It is a rejection of allopathic medicine, and a general way of medicalization. This goes for example with the home birth. The rejection of the vaccination requirement is often done in the name of freedom of each.
The confrontation between individual freedoms and collective security is a problem that is constant in public health.
Resorting to the argument of individual freedoms is a strategy of insubordination to the authority and made part of this report of forces inevitable between the State and its citizens. This argument, even in good faith, is very reductive because it fails vaccinations, protecting the individual, also preserve the community. With blankets, vaccine-high, it protects mainly the people who can’t receive vaccines (infants who are too young, immunocompromised, etc.
.). The defence of individual freedoms in the face of the vaccination requirement underlies a representation of a liberal society where the individual would replace the citizen. The debate has been “confiscated”? It would have been if Marisol Touraine, minister of Health had made this decision without any consultation, which is not the case.
The citizens were divided on the obligation, whereas the representatives of the health professionals were in favour of its removal. The outcome of the various discussions during this consultation is made in the image of the state of French public opinion on the subject: there has been no consensus. The government had to decide, causing the protest of a part of the population. . .